And How to Respond

June 25, 2005

By Katherine Yurica

Democrats
are liberal godless humanists.

First of all, Republican Combatantsthose
folks who either have the innate talent to aggressively attack
other folks or have been trained to attack Democrats wherever
they find one, whether it be on message boards and blogs on the
web, over the air waves, in our churches, in the media, and from
every dominionist organization and at every family reunion they
attendthe first thing is to notice they all have one thing
in common: they have to lie about Democrats and liberals,[1]but Democrats dont have to lie about them!

The reason Republican Combatants have
to lie about Democrats is this: if they told the trutheveryone,
including all true Christians would either leave the militant
Republican Party and join the Democrats (or other parties), or
would actively seek to change the Republican Party back to the
party of Abraham Lincoln. So my point is this: GOP Combatants
have to slander and stigmatize democrats as a fundamental matter
of tactics.

Of course all Christians know that the Bible
teaches that slander is a sin.[2] But most folks dont
know that the Bible tells Democrats exactly what to do when they
have been slandered. Nevertheless, the Lord, thundering down
the paths of time speaks to His beleaguered people through the
prophet Isaiah:

No weapon
that is formed against thee shall prosper, and every tongue that
shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This
is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness
is from me, saith the Lord. (Isaiah 54:17 KJV and compare
the Amplified Bible on this text[3])

Notice the Amplified Bible says  and
every tongue that shall rise against you in judgment you shall
show to be in the wrong.[4]The Lord is telling his
people that they have the responsibility to make it clear the
accusations are wrong! Thats pretty darn significant because
we are required to condemn the statements and expose
the falsity, and hence the immorality of the statement makers!

So what is one of the single deadliest-sock-dropper-slanders
levied by political combatants against Democrats? It is this
combination of terms:

Democrats
are liberal godless humanists.

Isnt that a humdinger? If I heard
it once, Ive heard it scores and scores of times. But if
youre a Democrat and if you are a born again, spirit
filled Christian, the Republican Combatants are still calling
you a liberal godless humanist! Who-eee!

Its important to realize as Christians
that these folks are speaking against Democrats on one levelbut
if we apply Jesus words to this situation, we find this
verse: inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these
my brethren, ye have done it onto me. So biblically their
sin is against Jesus Himself.[5] But if we dwell on the
implication of the political combatants allegation that
Democrats are godless for a while, its clear
that regardless of an individual Democrats faith in the
Lordthe Combatants are actually disenfranchising members
of the brotherhood and sisterhood of Jesus Christ! Hence, if
you are a Democratyou are not a Christian! The mind leaps
to that conclusion without effort. Whether Christians who are
Democrats know it or not, they have been kicked out of the body
of Christ by political hacks. This is stunning in its political
and social implications!

I usually just dismiss the slander with
a look that would make a lonely cloud cry on a sunny day! I used
to think, it wasnt worth my time! But Ive come to
realize that there are a whole lot of folks who cant tell
whats wrong with the accusation and because someone they
respect said itthey believe it. And so a whole lot of folks
follow the slanderers and every new fangled twist and turn of
the doctrines of the men who are running the GOP show.

Just for a second or two, can we agree that
the GOP show is something different than the Gospel
of Jesus Christ? Its just a thought.

The GOP political tacticians and combatants
have found attacking the faith of Christians who are Democrats
is a politically rewarding exercise. But at the same time, as
we shall see, this is the biggest whopper and mistake
of all time!

Okay, so lets get on with the lesson
for the day: How does one condemn false statements?

1. Point out that
the statement, Democrats are liberal godless humanists,
is a false generalization:

Right off the bat, a good thing to do is
to notice that the accusation describes all democrats
as having at least three different traits. Notice that the combatants
havent bothered to put in qualifiers, words
that act like a sign that marks the City Limits.
They dont try to put limits on their wordsthey assert
them as if they applied to all Democrats at all times.

If we give it a little thought we quickly
realize Democrats fall into more than just three categories!
Some of them believe in This, and some of them believe
in That. They come in all sizes, (narrow, broad,
tall, short). Some of them are smart and some of them are, well,
not so bright. Some are young and some are senior citizens. Some
of them dress nicely and others dress like slobs. Some are happy
and some are depressed. But you know, I could be describing any
group anywhere and theyd all have those differences. So
right off, Ive got a problem with trying to characterize
a whole group of people as having certain kinds of characteristics
that distinguish them from, say, Republicans.

So far, Id say most folks could agree
that when it comes to sizes and shapes and heights, both Democrats
and Republicans resemble each other.

So we know pretty much up front that the
Combatants have made a false statement. They have made a generalization
that cannot be true for all democrats. Now itll
be your job to falsify the statement. The easiest way I know
of, is to prove that not every Democrat has the trait
attributed to him by the Combatants. So all you have to say to
the poor combatant youre facing is, Well see here.
Im a democrat and Im a Christian believer, and Im
a moderatenot a liberal, and Im a Christian humanist
because I believe that God so loved humanity that He gave His
only begotten son!

If a person said that, and if the Combatant
were honest, hed have to say, I erred. Then
he could either hold fast to his generalization by saying something
like, Every Democrat but you is a liberal godless
humanist. But then you could produce another example of
yourselfsay a friendand then the combatant would
have to back off each time you produced another and another example
until finally, hed have to give in and say, Only
some democrats are liberal godless humanists! Once
hes said thatyou have forced him to back down. At
that point hes lost all the explosive power of his accusation!
So the Combatant, being a clever fellow and knowing he will have
admitted hes lost all his marbles if he backs downwont
back down!

Either waywhether he backs down or
notwhen we deal with irrational folkswe need to realize
that there is no way to help them find the truth.

I remember a story I read once from the
American psychologist Gordon W. Allport that illustrates the
point nicely. He said:

A paranoid woman had the fixed delusion that she was a dead person.
The doctor tried what he thought was a conclusive logical demonstration
to her of her error. He asked her, Do dead people bleed?

No, she answered.

Well, if I pricked your finger, would you bleed?

No, answered the woman, I wouldnt bleed;
Im dead.

Lets see, said the doctor, and pricked her
finger. When the patient saw the drop of blood appearing, she
remarked in surprise, Oh, so dead people do bleed
dont they.

2. Point out the
need to define the terms:

Its a good idea to ask the Combatant
what he means by his terms of Democrats are liberal godless
humanists. Suppose he says, Liberal means
a licentious[6]socialist,
(most often meaning to him or her communist); Godless
means atheist and humanist means that man is the
center of all things! So in essence when its all
boiled down, the Combatant means something like this: All
Democrats are licentious atheistic man-centered communists.
Right away we know the Combatant is completely confused.

Its vital to keep in mind that words
like socialist and humanist have multiple
meanings as does the word liberal. Youll never
go wrong by using the dictionaryeven for words youre
familiar with. You might find that your accuserthe Combatant
who is attacking youmight very well fall into a pit he
cant climb out of.

How Do Combatants Define
the Word Liberal?

Lets begin by confining our discussion
to the words liberal and liberalism.
Most people think of the word liberal as open mindedness,
or the sense the word is used in the Bible: marked by generosity,
or openhandedness. Today, people who are liberal are thought
of as folks who are neither narrow minded nor bound by
authoritarianism. It strikes me that the definition of
political liberalism is pregnant with love for ones fellow
countrymen.

Political liberalism is defined this way:

A political
philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness
of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance
and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all
spheres of life, especially by the protection of political and
civil liberties and for government under law with the consent
of the governed. Websters Third New International
Dictionary.

With a definition like that its a
tough job to turn a silk purse into a sows ear! As we are
about to see, when Republican Combatants use the terms Liberal
or Liberalism they always intend the pejorative sense.

From their point of view, one of the best
senses of the word liberal is this definition:

not bound
by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional or established
forms in action, attitude, or opinion.

The dictionary goes on to say,

Liberal
suggests an emancipation from convention, tradition, or dogma
that extends from a belief in altering institutions to fit altering
conditions to a preference for lawlessness 

Oh shout it right out there when you have
the right answer boys! The dictionary has come to the aid of
the Combatants who discovered a treasure beyond their wildest
dreams when they stumbled upon this meaning of the word. For
if the word liberal embraces a preference for lawlessness
then it is a God-send. For in the Bible, St. John defines sin
as lawlessness.[7]What were looking
at here is the slow unfolding of how the word liberal
became a code word for sinners to millions of Americans.
One can sit back and shake ones head imagining the joy
of the little Combatant who discovered the dictionarys
list of definitions.

Among the discoveries was a definition that
tied some of the best churches in America to immorality and apostasy.
Radical right preachers could and did rail against another group:
the same dictionary, Websters Third New International
Dictionary defines liberalism when it is capitalized,
as a religious movement! The dictionary states Liberalism
is:

A movement
in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and
the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity.

With the help of the dictionary, religious
right combatants who occupy pulpits and the air waves of America,
attacked Liberalism in the churches, and called these folks unregenerated
sinners who have introduced apostasy into the churches. And what
is worse the Combatants have launched war against good churches
and good people who love the Lord. Combatants have even called
for the destruction of churches and religious organizations.[8]

The question is why?

Its very important to realize that
when the Combatants of the religious right attack Americans as
liberal, they are not accusing us of being democratic,
instead, they seek to show that liberals are immoral.
Its the only plausible verbal attack they can make.
If you think about it long and hard enoughyoull begin
to see why the issues of rights for homosexuals and the right
of women to control their own bodies and the right of all people
to marry and the right to privacy in peoples bedrooms,
and the right to take a pill to prevent a pregnancy, have been
pushed to the forefront of the headlines of national debate issues.
If you ask yourself why these issues are so important to the
GOP, the most obvious reason is that Republican Combatants needed
a plausible excuse to attack the meek, the humble, and the loving
people of America.

They had to find powerful imagery that would
convert democratic followers of Jesus into monsters in the eyes
of millions of churchgoers who would have otherwise voted for
Democrats. They found their answers in the dictionary. They could
say, Look, read it in the dictionary! Those who call themselves
liberals are by definition lacking significant moral restraints:
[they are] licentious.[9] The only problem
is this definition is no longer in use; its obsolete according
to Websters Third New International Dictionary.
But keep in mind, obsolete definitions arent necessarily
disregarded by political combatants.

What a twist of irony can be exposed just
by looking terms up in a good dictionary. And what political
winds can be changed with just one word.

How Democrats Should Define Liberalism

But wait! The story isnt over yet.
Liberalism with a capital L is not the only definition
of liberalism. Websters Third New International Dictionary
defines another sense of the word that has far reaching implications
for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, all Americans and the
nations of the world. Liberalism is:

A theory
in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint especially
by government regulation in all economic activity and usually
based upon free competition, the self-regulating market, and
the gold standard called also economic liberalism.
(Websters Third New International Dictionary.)

Whoa! If youre quick on the uptakeyou
know that this definition is an accurate description of Mr. Bushs
economic policies. Didnt he tell the world at the International
Republic Institute in May what his basic and essential economic
pillars are? He called for:

A free economy,
to create opportunity and free people from dependence on the
state.[10]

Not only that, Mr. Bush called his free
market principle, a tenet of democracy?[11]

But Mr. Bushs idea of the market place
calls for an end to environmental
regulation and lets corporations poison the air and the water
at will. No sooner was Mr. Bush inaugurated on January
20, 2001 when he sent Andrew Card, his Chief of Staff, to
issue a sixty-day moratorium halting all new health, safety,
and environmental regulations issued in the final days of the
Clinton administration.[13]And it was Mr. Bush who
rolled back environmental
controls of air pollution that scientists estimate will cause
the premature deaths of over 100,000 Americans.[14]It is Mr.
Bush who continues to ignore the dangers of global warmingand
to falsify the data about it, with total disregard for the life
and health of everyone on this planet.

Lets be frank about this. Mr. Bush
is a post card image of liberalism. The term economic liberalism
belongs not to Democrats but to the Republicans and to all those
who want laissez-faire,
unregulated free markets.

It appears that the pot has been calling
the kettle black and most folks didnt know
it, because we dont study dictionaries as we ought! In
fact, those of us who believe that government should regulate
the market place to keep it honest and protect the public from
unscrupulous operators whose greed invents ways to steal from
the poor to give to the rich are economic conservatives.

Lets understand too that the economic
liberalism of Mr. Bush and the Republican controlled House and
Senate is immoral. If you should add up the 100,000 Americans
who will die because of Mr. Bush's air polution policy with the
estimated 100,000 Iraqis who have been killed in the unjustified
war in Iraq, this administration, with the support of the Republican
congress, is responsible for the deaths of more people than any
other administration since Viet Nam.

This administration unleashed the most immoral
reign of power in this nations history. They have made
greed, power and falsification their modus operandi. They
alone have approved of torture. They alone have lied to the American
people and to Congress in order to justify the invasion of Iraq,
a country that was not a threat to America. They alone believe
that immoral acts are justified if their goal is ultimately good.
Yet Republican Combatants dare to lie about the morality of honest,
Christians who happen to be Democrats and who are trying to preserve
our democratic form of government.

Which brings us to another question: what
is a democrat anyway?

How Does the Dictionary Define Democrat
and Democracy

Really check out the definition of democrat
it will make you proud to be an American again! You might be
surprised to find out Websters Third New International
Dictionary says a democrat is an adherent or advocate
of democracy; especially one who believes in or practices
social equality.

The next word to look up is democracy.
Its defined as a form of government in which the
supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them 
Democracy means political, social, or economic equality:
the absence or disavowal of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions
or privileges; a state of society characterized by tolerance
toward minorities, freedom of expression, and respect for the
essential dignity and worth of the human individual with equal
opportunity for each to develop freely to his fullest capacity
in a cooperative community.

But thats not what Republican Combatants
want. Listen to this: Randall Terry, Head of Operation Rescue,
told an audience in Fort Wayne, Indiana on April 15, 1993:

Our goal
is a Christian Nation .We have a Biblical duty, we are called
by God to conquer this country. We dont want equal time.
We dont want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means
God rules.[15]

3. Point out the
origin of Democracy

Have you ever wondered where the idea of
a democratic society came from? Would it surprise you to learn
that Jesus
originated it? Heres something I wrote for Stanley
Kurtz which explains it:

Jesus has always been democratic!
He has always said that all of the law is fulfilled in two verses:
(you Saints know the ones Im quotin): that we are
to love the Lord our God with our whole hearts, minds and souls
and our neighbor as ourselves! Now if you love your neighbor
as yourselfyour neighbor has the right to speak and we
have the obligation to listen: thats Democracy! Your
neighbor also has the right to vote! Your neighbor also has to
have all the rights that you haveeven if hes despised
by someeven if hes gay, even if hes a Muslimelse
you dont love your neighbor as yourself! Thats Jesus
talkingnot me! See Jesus created equality with that
verse. These so-called conservative folks want to create elitism.
They dont want to feed and clothe the poor and to pay taxes
for that purpose. They want power they wont grant to you
and me. Thats not Jesus talking! Thats another voice.
Thats not Christianitythats the spirit of anti-Christ.

It
appears that God has originated the concept of social equality,
which then produces democracy. So the Republican Combatants who
spawn their discontent with democrats are really attacking Jesus!
What else is there to say about it? Just remember the word, Get
thee out of her my people! And her here refers
to the Republican party!

Notes (Click on the number
and you will return to your place in the text)

[1]
Ive included the term liberals here to include
all those in other parties who would call themselves progressives.
I intend this to include all open minded, intellectually inquiring
Republicans who are seeking answers and questioning statements.
I am indebted to Letha Dawson Scanzoni for creating the term,
"Agressive Combatant" and to Chip Berlet and Terri
Murray for calling it to my attention. See Letha Dawson Scanzoni's
article, "The Gospel on Gay Marriage" at: http://www.alternet.org/story/22241/?cID=10925

[3]
The Amplified Version says it this way: But no weapon that
is formed against you shall prosper, and every tongue that shall
rise against you in judgment you shall show to be in the wrong.
This [peace, righteousness, security, triumph over opposition]
is the heritage of the servants of the Lord [those in whom the
ideal Servant of the Lord is reproduced]. This is the righteousness
or the vindication which they obtain from Methis is that
which I impart to them as their justificationsays the Lord.
Isaiah 54:17 Amplified Bible.

[6]Websters Third New International Dictionary defines
licentious as: 1: marked by the absence of legal
or moral restraints: hostile or offensive to accepted standards
of conduct 2: marked by lewdness; LASCIVIOUS,
UNCHASTE 3: marked by neglect of or disregard for strict
rules of correctness.

[7]
See 1 John: 3:4 where the Greek word anomia is translated
lawlessness in most of the Bible versions. Compare
the following:

The Amplified
Bible reads: Every one who commits (practices) sin
is guilty of lawlessness; for [that is what] sin is, lawlessness
[the breaking, violating of Gods law by transgression or
neglect; being unrestrained and unregulated by His commands and
His will].

Similarly,
the New International Version reads: Everyone who
sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

The New
American Standard Bible reads: Every one who practices
sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

The Revised
Standard Bible reads: Every one who commits sin is
guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

The New
English Bible reads: To commit sin is to break Gods
law: sin, in fact, is lawlessness.

The King
James Version reads: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth
also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.

[8]
The Association of Church Renewal, ACR, a tax-exempt religious
organization, sent out a press release on March 27, 2001, called
for the dissolution of the National Council of Churches.
The ACR called the National Council of Churches a hindrance
to the cause of Christian unity.

Katherine Yurica is a news intelligence
analyst. She was educated at East Los Angeles College, the University
of Southern California and the USC school of law. She worked
as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent
for Christianity Today plus as a freelance investigative
reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher
of the Yurica Report.